EV Digest 6507
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: swamp cooled EV?
by "Joseph H. Strubhar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) BattEQ test (was Battery Woes)
by "Mick Abraham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Better Data Logging Options?
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Re: Best way to run battery cables
by Mark Brueggemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: My latest attempt to get a few extra miles ... never seen this
one done before
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Battery watering?
by Mark Brueggemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: swamp cooled EV?
by Mark Brueggemann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) EV swamp cooler
by JS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) RE: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
by Bill Dube <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) Clarification on my high and low voltage on the Festiva
by Steve Powers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) Dual motors,
single chain (was RE: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) POWER FABT battery system developed by CymbetT
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
13) Any Tips on Breaking in New Batteries?
by Mike Chancey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
14) Re: Clarification on my high and low voltage on the Festiva
by "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
15) Processor Lockup Failsafe
by Bill Dennis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
16) Re: Batteries for small high voltage conversion
by "Bruce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
17) Re: Better Data Logging Options?
by John Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Be aware that some states (like Oregon) ban aftermarket tinting beyond a
certain point of darkness. So when the cops stop you, they can see what
you're doing when they come up to your window!
Joseph H. Strubhar
E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Web: www.gremcoinc.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Shanab" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: swamp cooled EV?
> The coating on the glass is a very good point and the one that is now
> put in newer cars works wonders. If you have a post 95 car and have had
> the windshield replaced and your air conditioner just doesn't seem to
> keep up like it used to that can be the problem. Manufactures are
> reducing the AC size depending on that coating and better headliner
> insulation(insulated board instead of suspended cloth.
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007
2:43 PM
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Philippe Borges said: "Don't be so sceptical, i'm an EVlist member, over
the pond and though i don't pay for it, i suppose you are not the only one
selling Batteq in the world, i'm wrong ? ;^)"
[Mick says:] No skepticism here, I'm sure you have the model BattEQ that you
say you have. A different POST had asked if any list members had bought the
gizmos from me, so I was explaining that none of you have. There definitely
are several selling channels for BattEQ so you obviously got your sample
through one of those.
Philippe said: "I use Fluke 123 and 189, few precise wattmeters, an homemade
auto cycler with adjustable cut-off and load.I made few simple shunt reg
design and tested their benefits/problems."
[Mick says:] Excellent. The auto cycler you describe replaces the need for
the Trace C-40 that I suggested in an earlier post, provided that you also
have an e-meter or similar way to clock amp-hour delivery prior to low
voltage cutoff.
Philippe said: equalizing process is happening BUT take a
Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time... even on tiny 7Ah batteries.
at 23H19 here i'm reading:
12.38
12.38
12.42
12.38
remember initial surface voltage (start at 12H00) was
11,37
12,42
12,59
12,21
11 Hours ago still not fully equalized ouch !!!
[Mick says:] Your ouch!!! remark may be premature. When the voltage
difference has narrowed to only 4 hundredths from highest monobloc to
lowest, the remaining energy doesn't need to move in a hurry. Most of us
would not initiate a major equalization charge based on a .04 difference.
Slow is fine when the voltages are this close. When the delta-v is small the
energy transfer diminishes to match. Think of a long absorption charge which
continues and tapers as long as necessary until full energy transfer has
occurred.
If you had connected the four monoblocs in parallel instead of using the
balancer, you would observe much the same result: most of the delta-v
disappears rather quickly, but the final few millivolts take time.
A long duration to initial identical voltage on a battery at rest is not a
problem because the battery at rest doesn't have to do any work. When the
battery comes under stress due to charging or discharging the voltages will
try to diverge. As that happens, the energy transfer will increase to try to
keep the voltages level.
Philippe said: I...measured an impressive 9ma flow...I hope to see more
power during Test 2. Such rate may be ok for solar (i'm not sure about that)
but on EV use seems way too low...
[Mick says:] As the delta-v approaches zero the amperage transfer also
approaches zero. If the delta-v is zero; the amp transfer is also zero, and
the balancer cannot be criticized in this case because the battery with a
zero delta-v shows no sign of imbalance and therefore no need for energy to
be pumped from channel to channel.
Philippe said: "Most important test and simplest for proving battery
equaliser benefit is just showing it's able to charge the weakest from the
other string batteries and the rate, in these essential aspects test 2 will
say all tomorrow."
[Mick says:] I respectfully differ; your test 2 will not necessarily tell
all, because it doesn't simulate what really happens when a battery string
is at work. I earlier suggested that "the acid test for any battery string
is the number of amp-hours it can deliver before it hits a low voltage
shutoff point." If a balancing solution can increase that amp-hour delivery
that's the best way to measure the benefit of that balancing solution.
[Mick says:] To drill down further from a simple before/after capacity test,
the critical questions are:
1. What is the maximum energy that the gizmo can pump?
2. How much energy does it lose in the process?
One cannot observe the maximum amperage throughput unless a delta-v is
developed and maintained within the battery string. When discharging an
unbalanced battery in the real world, the monoblocs that want to "go zombie"
slump in voltage. That's when they need a shot of energy, and that's when
the BattEQ amperage ramps up.
Your Test #2 would probably show a 2 amp per channel throughput for a short
time, but the voltage gap will narrow fairly quickly and the amp transfer
will diminish...as it should and as it must. Real world battery strings
where one monobloc is trying to "go zombie" will have a delta-v that
persists for the duration of the discharge. Simulate that and you can see
what the BattEQ can do on a continuous basis.
I will send to Philippe off list my diagram on how to fairly answer the two
questions posed above. The diagram is based on the 2 channel version of the
balancer that Philippe has, and trying to port these test concepts over to a
4 channel balancer is tricky. Especially for the initial measurements, using
a 2 channel LA-50 would cause less brain damage. Other EVDL members who wish
to see this suggested test procedure may contact me off list and I'll send
it.
Mick Abraham
www.abrahamsolar.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folks,
As some of you may recall, I have been data logging my
charge/discharge cycles using the RS-232 port on my E-meter and an
old P75 laptop. I have been using the Hyperterminal software
included in Windows 95 and capturing the data to a text file. Since
the E-meter sends a complete data string every second, these files
rapidly swell in size and contain a lot redundant information.
My question is, is there a more flexible alternative? In an ideal
world, I would love to have something that could start and stop based
on a batch file, auto save to a networked folder, and add a time
stamp to each record. It would also be wonderful if it could drop
records that show no change form the previous entry. So, does anyone
have any ideas?
BTW, if you curious about how this logging is done, see:
http://www.timnolan.com/hparticle/Nolan74.pdf
One caveat, Tim's setup was low voltage so he was able to work
without an isolator between the E-meter and the PC. EVs will require
an isolator unless you like the smell of smoking electronics. Tim
did include downloads to cut the data size by only logging each tenth
entry and for adding a time stamp, but so far I haven't been able to
get them to work.
The original thread is in the archive under "A Dumb Old Laptop Can Be
Pretty Slick Tool".
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Frank John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do folks generally do when running battery cables from
> the boxes (on the rear of a small pickup in this case) up to the
> controller/motor area?
I simply routed mine along the same path used for the brake and
fuel lines. Figured if it was protected enough for those, it
should be OK for neoprene sheathed 2/0. Plastic conduit, wire
loom or other protection can't hurt, but can be a real pain to
work with. Neoprene is pretty tough in it's own right, if you
take measures to route it carefully against crushing or undue
abrasion, you should be fine.
Mark "EV Basher" Brueggemann
Albuquerque, NM
S-10 EV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Ouch! Is this pack near the end of it's life, or are you just trying to
get it there quickly?
I normally try to keep my 120V pack above 105V at ALL times, at least
until it get's near the end of it's life. Then I start letting it dip
under 105V as neccessary to complete my trip.
After all, if the pack can't get me to work and back without dipping under
105V, then it's basically toast anyway. I can't hurt it, so I might as
well wring out an extra month or two.
My first pack only lasted a little over a month when it got to this point,
but hey, that's like getting a free month. I probably could have gotten
two months, if I didn't mind holding up traffic.
But at any rate...94V is hurting your T-105s (even 100V would be hurting
them), 86V is killing them.
> Cor, I occasionally draw my 120V pack of Trojan T-105's down to 86 Volts
> under load, but usually it only goes to 94 or so. Is this too low for
> floodeds?
>
> Joseph H. Strubhar
>
> E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Web: www.gremcoinc.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cor van de Water" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:00 PM
> Subject: RE: My latest attempt to get a few extra miles ... never seen
> this
> one done before
>
>
>> Note that Peter is talking about the voltage while driving, under load.
>> As soon as the load is gone, the pack must come back quickly and reach
>> at
>> least 96V after a while, as at 12V resting voltage, the batteries are
> empty.
>> Normally they will sit above 12.3V (2.05V per cell) and freshly charged
> AGM
>> batteries can sit as high as 13.2V (2.2V per cell)
>>
>> 105V for 48 cells is 2.19V per cell, or 13.1V for a 12V battery - sounds
>> good. 100V is still 12.5V per battery and certainly not dead, absolutely
> not
>> dead if you use this threshold under load - you can go as low as about
>> 80
> to
>> 85V under (heavy) load, to keep the cells above 1.75V which is the limit
>> that they are tested at for capacity.
>>
>> 1.75V x 48 cells = 84V.
>> (Some manufacturers set a different, lower voltage limit under high
>> discharge voltage, arguing that the resistance in the battery
> interconnects
>> and plates adds to the voltage drop.
>> For example if you have a decent battery it may have 4mOhm (0.004 Ohm)
>> internal resistance.
>> When you draw 300A through this pack, the internal resistance of 8
> batteries
>> in series will make the pack voltage drop 8x 300A x 4mOhm = 8x 1200mV =
>> 8x
>> 1.2V = 9.6V.
>> So, the minimum pack voltage under 300A load while keeping 1.75V per
>> cell
> as
>> lowest limit is 84 - 9.6V = 74.4V
>> so you see that the absolute lowest level of 75V that Peter suggested
>> has
>> some background in keeping the pack safe while driving, while it allows
> you
>> to make the most of your range. Note that it is only allowed to go this
> low
>> while driving. As soon as you take your foot off the throttle, it must
> bouce
>> back to above 90V (11.5V per battery) or it is already dead and you have
>> begun to reverse cells in the pack.
>> If this happens once on accident during the last mile to get home, no
>> problem, simply put the pack immediately on a charge and it likely will
> be
>> fine.
>> Doing this repeatedly will certainly damage your pack and reduce your
> range
>> quickly - this is the way "stinkers" are created!
>>
>> Hope this helps,
>>
>> Cor van de Water
>> Systems Architect
>> Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
>> Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
>> Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
>> Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Peter VanDerWal
>> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 9:09 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: My latest attempt to get a few extra miles ... never seen
> this
>> one done before
>>
>> Huh? No wonder you are getting so little range. You can safely drive a
> 96V
>> pack until it drops to 84V. If you only drive until it drops to 100V
>> then
>> you are barely taking the surface charge off the pack.
>>
>> When the pack gets to the end of it's life you can drive a 96V pack down
> to
>> 75-80V. It's pretty much shot anyway, so you can't hurt it.
>> But this doesn't apply to your pack, apparently you haven't even
>> stressed
> it
>> yet. It should have plenty of life left.
>>
>> > So, I have the Festiva, and I'm driving it on the 96 V pack of 12 V
>> > Deka Group 24's that are way past their usable life. Even with the
>> > Curtis controller, easier on the batts than the GE EV-1, I'm getting
>> > only about
>> > 4.5 mile range. I was getting about 3.25 with the EV-1. Those batts
>> > are 80 AH at a 20 A discharge rate. Derate about 50% for EV discharge
>> > rate and not killing them, that's 40 AH. Voltage varies between 105
>> > (full) and
>> > 98 (totally dead). I try not to go below 100 V. So, about 4kW-hr of
>> > usable energy. The car is 2200 lb. I'd say 300 Wh-hr / mile. So,
>> > with a brand new pack on a bright sunny day here in GA, I should be
>> > able to safely go 13 miles. Really, that is pretty lame for a pack
>> > that must cost about $1200. In flooded, the pack is about $550.
>> > Flooded has its own issues. Like parking on a slight grade and trying
>> > to charge the batts when the plates aren't evenly covered ... My
>> > flooded batts are actually set in at a very slight angle to match the
>> > grade of the driveway. I literally used a level to put them in the
>> car.
>> >
>> > So, I could spend $1200 on a fresh set of the Deka Group 24, and
>> > some day, it may come to that if no one comes up with a decent battery
>> > solution.
>> >
>> > For now, I bought one (soon to get a second) 12 V / 120 Ah (at 20 A
>> > discharge) battery for $65. I also bought a 700 Watt inverter off
>> > ebay for a buck. I put the batts in my car, run the inverter, through
>> > my BC-20 and try as best as I can to keep the pack charged.
>> >
>> > I drive that whole 2 miles to work. Let it sit and recharge itself
>> > off the spare batts, go out for lunch, let it charge itself, back to
>> > work, more self charging off the aux batt, and back home. I should be
>> > able to get 8.5 miles (as long as I don't go more than 4 miles in any
>> > given 2 hour period). That is OK, because when I go somewhere, I am
>> > usually there for a few hours. It's like driving with a 4 mile range
>> > and plugging in all the time, every time you stop. Not a great
>> > solution, but it cost only $150 and I got a 8.5 mile range (I think)
>> > and I didn't have to drop $1200 on a new set of Dekas yet. It may
>> > last 6 months or a year like this. Maybe only a few weeks. Either
>> > way, it was worth a try.
>> >
>> > This got me into other stuff. I am working on replacing my lead
>> > acid secondary pack with NiMH. Again, limit the discharge rate. I
>> > could put in a 3300 Watt inverter if I wanted to ... But, not use
>> > them as the primary motive force. A friend lent me some 13 Ah F cells
>> > (40 of them) to play with. I was going to try 4 sets of 10 each of
>> > those in parallel with my one lead acid 120 AH aux battery. That
>> > would be 12 V / 172 Ah (at a 20 A discharge rate).
>> >
>> > I also have 850 1.2 V / 1.6 AH NiMH cells that I picked up 2 years
>> > ago when I started the last Festiva project. I could maybe do
>> > something with those as well.
>> >
>> > I looked at prices, and it seems like I can get flooded lead (not
>> > Trojan
>> > though) for $0.045 per Watt-hr. Again, that is low discharge rate,
>> > not Optimas or anything EV worthy. I can get NiMH for about $0.31 per
>> > Watt-hr. I don't even dare price Li Ion, but my best bet would be
>> > DeWalt packs off E-bay. I'm not comfortable making a BMS for those,
>> > so I'll stick with NiMH. I believe you can get one of those 36 V
>> > LiIon packs for about $100 on e-bay. Again, the BMS is the issue.
>> >
>> > Where am I going with all this? Maybe a good solution is like what
>> > I have -
>> >
>> > 8 x 12 V AGM +
>> > a 5000 Watt-Hr aux pack of NiMH (or Li Ion) and a 3300 Watt
>> inverter.
>> >
>> > I think you could get an easy real 30 mile range and some decent
>> > performance. I am not a fan of flooded lead golf cart batts at all.
>> > Why? Years of cars with poor acceleration. It wasn't until I got the
>> > super light car and the AGMs that I got acceptable (to me that is)
>> > performance.
>> >
>> > With my soultion, you can also add an alternator on the tail shaft
>> > of the motor (geared appropriately for charging at very slow motor
>> > RPM) and kick it on when the start switch is off to charge the aux
>> > batt that goes through the inverter / charger ... and back to the
>> > pack. Efficiency of that whole system maybe 65% (with the alternator
>> > and all) Worth it? I don't know.
>> >
>> > I'm open to comments, suggestions?
>> >
>> > Steve
>> >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------
>> > Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and always stay connected
>> > to friends.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
> junk
>> at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
>> wish
>> with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
>> legalistic signature is void.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/707 - Release Date: 3/1/2007
> 2:43 PM
>>
>>
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- Ryan Stotts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Fuel: ... lets say $200 a month in fuel.
>
> $2550 for the Zilla, $1700 for the 9" WarP, $1,550 for the PFC-20.
> $5,800 so far.
>
> In 2-1/2 years, that stuff will have been paid for in fuel
> savings(quicker if higher fuel prices).
You get batteries and electricity for free? Careful now, don't
be looking to save money on gas. It's not possible with a
street conversion. Do this project for fun or enlightenment,
but until gas goes *way* up, or batteries get lots better/cheaper,
it will cost you more to run your ranger on batteries than
gasoline. I would not consider the electric driveline as
part of the "fuel savings" anyway. You don't separately factor
value of the ICE, gas tank and radiator when determining operating
costs of an ICE vehicle, so what I would do is build your vehicle,
then start counting operating costs with the battery pack and
price of electricity (varies from region to region).
> Which batteries and what size pack?
> 40 mile round trip commute. Most of it on
> the interstate(70mph).
>
> '01 reg cab Ranger(2wd).
>
> US 125's? How many?
Depends a lot on whether or not you can charge at the halfway
point. Your range and speed requirement to go 20mi @ 70mph are
met with even a basic 120V to 144V pack of T-105's but would
stress a 144V pack of T-125's to premature demise running
40mi @ 70mph.
> How often would they have to be watered?
Depends on how much you use them. They require less watering
when new than as they age. Also depends on temperature and
how many equalize charges, and at what currents. Off the
cuff guess would be once every 2-3 months when new, then down
to every few weeks when tired.
> Mount them under the bed using standard angle iron?
> 1/4" or 3/8"?
I used both angle and box, 1/8" wall.
Mark "EV Basher" Brueggemann
Albuquerque, NM
S-10 EV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Many years ago, I used to see cars with a swamp cooler device
> attached at the passanger window.
One of the car shows my EV was in had a few '50's cars with
the passenger window mounted swamp coolers. I figured they
were restorations, but upon talking to the owners I learned
that these were brand new. Apparently the originals had
long rotted away (much like contemporary home models) and
there's enough demand that they are available via aftermarket
suppliers. I was told the price was around $400-$500,
unpainted.
I also learned they are "passive", meaning they require the
wind of travel speed to force the air through them. Not to
say you couldn't make a fan-powered swamp cooler that operated
at any speed, but it wouldn't be with one of these purchased
units.
Bottom line is when you work it all out, just about any kind
of A/C in an EV is superfluous, since with the limited
amount of time you'll be spending in the car (since you can
only go so far on a single charge) you won't be needing the
A/C for long anyway. Put the time/effort/money into a battery
management system instead.
Mark "EV Basher" Brueggemann
Albuquerque, NM
S-10 EV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Home Power Magazine had ads last summer for a company in AZ that made
a couple different models that mounted inside the EV.
In 1939 my grandfather had a window mount that made it possible for us
to cross
the desert in summer. A canvas water bag on the front bumper supplied
cool drinking water through natural evaporation.
John in Sylmar, PV EV
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Once I figured out to use o-ring chain, the present set-up has worked
flawlessly. The o-ring chain keeps the grease from flinging out when
the chain makes the bend over the small sprocket. This was a serious
problem on the short chain (until I put on o-ring chain.)
Each bend you put in the chain reduces efficiency, adds complexity,
and adds weight.
Bill Dube'
At 02:18 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
Using just one chain requires a very stiff tensioner spring and sprocket,
such that the chain from the rear wheel makes a 180 deg around the first
motor sprocket, runs back to the tensioner sprocket and makes another 180
deg to run over the second motor sprocket with another 180 deg and ends up
at the bottom of the rear wheel sprocket.
If the tensioner spring is not stiff enough, the second motor will pull it
forward and drop the chain going back to the rear wheel sprocket, so it's
easy to see when that happens.
Advantage is that the chain is always tensioned and wear will not cause
problems until it gets so bad that the chain does not seat properly on the
sprockets. (Chains always stretch while used)
The tensioner can be attached to the frame or to the horizontal fork if you
have a hardtail.
In ASCII-art it looks like this:
_____________________
/ \ _____O Motor 1
| X | v^v^v-O________________
\___/____________________________O Motor 2
X is the rear axle with the big sprocket
v^v^v is the tensioner spring, attached to the small tensioner sprocket
Motor 1 and Motor 2 have equal sized sprockets, but do not need to be
mounted above each other, as long as the chain is not touching, they can be
almost side by side. Here I showed Motor 2 further forward.
Hope this gives some ideas,
Cor van de Water
Systems Architect
Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of BadFishRacing
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
Bill,
Looking at the pictures, it looks like the comm end of the motors is farther
outboard than the shaft end. Or is the intent that the 'center of mass' of
the motors is in the center of the bike? Anyhow, I'm looking at putting a
L-91 motor in my bike, but the thing is so long, I'll need a jackshaft to
bring the drive back inboard to drive the rear wheel. Did you just get
lucky that the motor lines up with the wheel? Knowing you, probably good
design. Even running a JrDragster rear wouldn't be wide enough to line
up...... Suggestions?
Darin
BadFishRacing
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
> I'll take a photo of that this weekend as I reassemble the drive.
>
> I bought two twin-row 18 tooth (and 16 tooth) #60 sprockets. I then
> machined the inner sides to thin down the #60 (0.5 inch wide) to fit #630
> motorcycle chain (0.375" wide.) A short loop of chain on the outside
> sprockets links the motors to each other. The inside sprocket of the rear
> motor drives the rear tire sprocket.
>
> The motors are spaced 7.5 inches apart. This makes ten links of #630
> exactly.
>
> Bill Dube'
>
> At 09:49 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>>I'd still like to see how the 2 motors are coupled together to drive
>>the rear wheel as I've never seen that particular detail before.
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 2/28/2007
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
96 V pack of AGM.
I fully charge and get about 105 V. That is OK.
I run it until is starts slowing down, poor performance. I measure the pack
(not under load) after I stop, and it is around 100 V. Then, it bounces back
to about 101 V after a few hours. Still, the perofrmance is very bad, and I
can't drive it in that state.
As for the inverter / charger plan, I have the parts, but not yet installed.
Why not just 8 of the 120 Ah 12 V batts for $65 ea? They won't fit in the
car because they are group 29. I can only fit the 2 extra in the back. Then,
it is overloaded. They have 80 AH flooded, $63 / ea. I don't know how well
thy will hold up. Warrenty on 80 AH is 12 months, 18 months on 120 AH, so I
went with 120 AH.
My whole throry is that the batts have pleanty of energy still in them, I
just can't get it out of them because unless they are hot off the charger, my
performance is very bad. The aux pack / inverter / charger just keept the SOC
higher that's all.
Steve
---------------------------------
Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people
who know.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
That doesn't seem like a very good arrangement to me. If you must do the
180 degree setup, I'd think you'd have better results swapping places with
the second motor and chain tensioner.
I.e.:
________________________
/ \ ________O Motor 1
| X | Motor 2-O____
\___/________________O tensioner
This way all the tensioner has to do is take up the slack, it doesn't have
to fight the torque from the second motor. The second motor takes care of
keeping the chain tight between itself and the first motor.
I see a couple problems with this though; the first motor will have a
tremendous amount of side loading, about twice what it'd normally see, and
the second motor would have to run in reverse (minor problem).
>
> At 02:18 AM 3/4/2007, you wrote:
>>Using just one chain requires a very stiff tensioner spring and sprocket,
>>such that the chain from the rear wheel makes a 180 deg around the first
>>motor sprocket, runs back to the tensioner sprocket and makes another 180
>>deg to run over the second motor sprocket with another 180 deg and ends
>> up
>>at the bottom of the rear wheel sprocket.
>>If the tensioner spring is not stiff enough, the second motor will pull
>> it
>>forward and drop the chain going back to the rear wheel sprocket, so it's
>>easy to see when that happens.
>>Advantage is that the chain is always tensioned and wear will not cause
>>problems until it gets so bad that the chain does not seat properly on
>> the
>>sprockets. (Chains always stretch while used)
>>The tensioner can be attached to the frame or to the horizontal fork if
>> you
>>have a hardtail.
>>
>>In ASCII-art it looks like this:
>> _____________________
>> / \ _____O Motor 1
>> | X | v^v^v-O________________
>> \___/____________________________O Motor 2
>>
>>X is the rear axle with the big sprocket
>>v^v^v is the tensioner spring, attached to the small tensioner sprocket
>>Motor 1 and Motor 2 have equal sized sprockets, but do not need to be
>>mounted above each other, as long as the chain is not touching, they can
>> be
>>almost side by side. Here I showed Motor 2 further forward.
>>
>>Hope this gives some ideas,
>>
>>Cor van de Water
>>Systems Architect
>>Proxim Wireless Corporation http://www.proxim.com
>>Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Private: http://www.cvandewater.com
>>Skype: cor_van_de_water IM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Tel: +1 408 542 5225 VoIP: +31 20 3987567 FWD# 25925
>>Fax: +1 408 731 3675 eFAX: +31-87-784-1130
>>Second Life: www.secondlife.com/?u=3b42cb3f4ae249319edb487991c30acb
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>Behalf Of BadFishRacing
>>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:30 AM
>>To: [email protected]
>>Subject: Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
>>
>>Bill,
>>
>>Looking at the pictures, it looks like the comm end of the motors is
>> farther
>>outboard than the shaft end. Or is the intent that the 'center of mass'
>> of
>>the motors is in the center of the bike? Anyhow, I'm looking at putting
>> a
>>L-91 motor in my bike, but the thing is so long, I'll need a jackshaft to
>>bring the drive back inboard to drive the rear wheel. Did you just get
>>lucky that the motor lines up with the wheel? Knowing you, probably good
>>design. Even running a JrDragster rear wouldn't be wide enough to line
>>up...... Suggestions?
>>
>>Darin
>>BadFishRacing
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Bill Dube" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>To: <[email protected]>
>>Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:56 AM
>>Subject: Re: A few new KillaCycle photos (battery assembly)
>>
>>
>> > I'll take a photo of that this weekend as I reassemble the drive.
>> >
>> > I bought two twin-row 18 tooth (and 16 tooth) #60 sprockets. I then
>> > machined the inner sides to thin down the #60 (0.5 inch wide) to fit
>> #630
>> > motorcycle chain (0.375" wide.) A short loop of chain on the outside
>> > sprockets links the motors to each other. The inside sprocket of the
>> rear
>> > motor drives the rear tire sprocket.
>> >
>> > The motors are spaced 7.5 inches apart. This makes ten links of #630
>> > exactly.
>> >
>> > Bill Dube'
>> >
>> > At 09:49 PM 3/1/2007, you wrote:
>> >>I'd still like to see how the 2 motors are coupled together to drive
>> >>the rear wheel as I've never seen that particular detail before.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > No virus found in this incoming message.
>> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> > Version: 7.1.413 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date:
>> 2/28/2007
>> >
>> >
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From the ET list. LR
3. POWER FABT battery system developed by CymbetT
Posted by: "Remy Chevalier" [EMAIL PROTECTED] cleannewworld
Date: Sat Mar 3, 2007 5:34 am ((PST))
http://www.hugg.com/story/rechargeable-batteries-Thin-Film-Lithium-Ion-Cells
posted by mayloveheal
"CymbetT has developed a high quality, innovative manufacturing process to
produce flat, flexible POWER FABT cells in any shape or size from a few
square microns to tens of square centimeters, and from 5 to 25 µm thick. The
POWER FABT cell is a new battery technology with extremely high energy
density and virtually unlimited re-charge capability. Cells can be
manufactured directly on almost any surface by depositing anode,
electrolyte, cathode and contacts sequentially upon each other, thus
assuring a totally contaminant free electrode interface. "
http://www.cymbet.com
Thin Film Lithium Ion Cells
The POWER FABT battery system developed by CymbetT Corporation is a truly
revolutionary rechargeable lithium ion cell. It is a flexible thin-film,
high energy density solid state battery capable of providing energy in any
available area as a primary or unlimited cycle power source. The POWER FABT
(Programmable orientation with enhanced reactivity) process eliminates
conventional battery compartments and the need to mount thin-film batteries
on costly sophisticated substrates. POWER FABT cells are easily customizable
and can be atomically bonded to virtually any surface. This allows the
placement of the battery in places never believed feasible. POWER FABT cells
can be part of the product structure, on a microchip, or just about
anywhere. POWER FABT cells can be produced as part of the manufacturing
operation added as part of a component to be included during assembly.
CymbetT has developed a high quality, innovative manufacturing process to
produce flat, flexible POWER FABT cells in any shape or size from a few
square microns to tens of square centimeters, and from 5 to 25 µm thick. The
POWER FABT cell is a new battery technology with extremely high energy
density and virtually unlimited re-charge capability. Cells can be
manufactured directly on almost any surface by depositing anode,
electrolyte, cathode and contacts sequentially upon each other, thus
assuring a totally contaminant free electrode interface. All other surfaces
of the POWER FABT cell are protected by a unique solid state barrier
developed by CymbetT. Electrical contact to the POWER FABT cell can be made
in a variety of ways as the application requires.
The POWER FABT battery is an unlimited cycle, flexible lithium cobalt oxide
cell that uses a solid state LiPON electrolyte developed and proven by The
United States Oak Ridge National Laboratories. CymbetT has combined its
unique POWER FABT thin film fabrication methods and energy enhancements with
the basic chemistry developed at Oak Ridge to produce the highest known
thin-film cell energy density. The CymbetT POWER FABT manufacturing process
produces high quality, high reliability, low cost cells in almost any shape
to meet application requirements. The all solid state design of POWER FABT
cells and Cymbet's innovative manufacturing approach has resulted in a very
high discharge rate capable cell that does not lose its power during storage
and has unlimited recharge capability. This means that most products using
POWER FABT cells will never need battery replacement.
CymbetT Corporation
18326 Joplin Street NW
Elk River, MN 55330-1773
Phone:
763.633.1780
Fax:
763.633.1799
Email:
info@ cymbet.com
ADVANCED FEATURES INCLUDE
Extremely High Energy Density: Up to 300 Watt-hours per kilogram
and up to 900 Watt- hours per liter
Unlimited Recharge Cycles: 70,000 demonstrated to date
Fast Recharging: Up to 50C rates at 80% efficiency
Charge Methods: Direct contact, RF, inductive,
solar - galvanostatic (CC) or
potentiostatic (CV)
Charge Retention: Less than 1% charge loss per year.
In many applications the cell can be used as a primary battery never
requiring recharge
Nominal Voltage: 3.6 volts
Voltage limits: Charge: 4.15 volts max.
Discharge: 3.0 volts typical;
short-circuit tolerant
State-of-charge: Compatible with all standard battery monitoring
circuits
Capacity: Up to 1 milliamp hour per sq. cm
Discharge Rate Capability: Continuous up to 5C; intermittent pulses up
to 15C
Flexible Cell Thickness: From 5 to 25 microns
Flexible Cell Areas: From a few square microns to tens
of square centimeters
Temperature: Storage: -50ºC to 180ºC.
Operating: -25ºC to 120ºC
Mechanical: Flexible, adhering to most surfaces
Thermal Stability: No adverse effects after one
hour at 250ºC
Re-flow solder capable
Intrinsic Safety: Solid state thin-film lithium-free containing no
flammable solvents
Availability: As cells from CymbetT Corp on
your choice of component
APPLICATIONS
Semiconductors: SRAM, Clock, Microcontroller, IC's, Nanocircuitry
R-F Identification Tracking, Monitoring, Identification, Location,
Security, Authentication
Medical Electronics Implants, Monitoring, Diagnostic, Medication,
Stimulation, TENS,
MEMS, Optical Switching, Hearing
Smart | Brilliant Cards Identification, Entitlement, Security,
Government, Health, ID, Wireless
Military Smart Munitions, Fusing, Sensing, Tracking, Monitoring,
Identification, Location, Security, Authentication, Guidance, Reconnaissance
Areospace Sensors, Satellites
Messages in this topic (1)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi folks,
After the 7 month fiasco with my Dynasty AGMs (and no warranty) I
have switched my Civic over to 13 Deka 8G31 gell cells. I really
want these to last, so while the Zivan NG5 is off getting
reprogrammed to match them I have been shallow discharging and
recharging them using the EVs heater as a load and my much modified
on-board "Fair Radio" charger to recharge them. I am using the
low-voltage lockout circuit on the E-meter to turn on the charger at
89% charge and turn it back off at 100% charge. The heater is
pulling about 22 Amps and the charge peaks out at about 8.2 charging
Amps. At cutoff the Voltage is up to 183 Volts and the current is
down to about 3.5 Amps.
So far I have cycled them three times this way, with the deepest
discharge being 16.5 AH. I thought that might have been to deep, so
I have been turning off the load at about 8.2 AH.
My question is, how many cycles like this would make a nice break in,
or is this too little to act as a break in at all? My original
thought was 15 of these cycles, then switch to gently driving short
distances and using about 25-35 percent of a charge for about 10 more
cycles. Does all this sound rational?
Thanks,
Mike Chancey,
'88 Civic EV
Kansas City, Missouri
EV Photo Album at: http://evalbum.com
My Electric Car at: http://www.geocities.com/electric_honda
Mid-America EAA chapter at: http://maeaa.org
Join the EV List at: http://www.madkatz.com/ev/evlist.html
In medio stat virtus - Virtue is in the moderate, not the extreme
position. (Horace)
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
So you are not monitoring voltage while driving?
Driving until the performance drops, means you are probably driving the
battery voltage too low and running the batteries down to, or below 100%
DoD.
Buy AT LEAST a volt meter to measure voltage under load. That is the
absolute MINIMUM intrumentation needed. An E-meter or something similar
is much better and a very wise investment.
I'm also guessing that you aren't using battery regulators (I missed it,
if you said you were). If you are not using regulators, then you are
probably overcharging the batteries. With AGMs then you pretty much need
individual battery regulators, otherwise you will likely over charge and
vent them. This causes a permanent loss of water, since AGMs are
generally not designed to allow you to add water once it's vented.
It sounds like you've overcharged and overdischarged the batteries,
they're toast. Chalk it up to murdering you first pack. It's highly
doubtful that you'll be able to do anything to regain any useful range.
Buy a new pack, buy some instrunmentation, buy some regulators. It hurts,
but I think this is your only real option to continuing to drive electric.
You can live without he instruments and regulators, but you'll just end
up driving the next pack to a similar early death.
> 96 V pack of AGM.
>
> I fully charge and get about 105 V. That is OK.
>
> I run it until is starts slowing down, poor performance. I measure the
> pack (not under load) after I stop, and it is around 100 V. Then, it
> bounces back to about 101 V after a few hours. Still, the perofrmance
> is very bad, and I can't drive it in that state.
>
> As for the inverter / charger plan, I have the parts, but not yet
> installed.
>
> Why not just 8 of the 120 Ah 12 V batts for $65 ea? They won't fit in
> the car because they are group 29. I can only fit the 2 extra in the
> back. Then, it is overloaded. They have 80 AH flooded, $63 / ea. I
> don't know how well thy will hold up. Warrenty on 80 AH is 12 months,
> 18 months on 120 AH, so I went with 120 AH.
>
> My whole throry is that the batts have pleanty of energy still in them,
> I just can't get it out of them because unless they are hot off the
> charger, my performance is very bad. The aux pack / inverter / charger
> just keept the SOC higher that's all.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real
> people who know.
>
>
--
If you send email to me, or the EVDL, that has > 4 lines of legalistic
junk at the end; then you are specifically authorizing me to do whatever I
wish with the message. By posting the message you agree that your long
legalistic signature is void.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you're using a microprocessor to control charging, what's a good way
to have the system fail to a safe state, should the processor freeze
up--for example, turn off the charger. One possibility that came to
mind was some type of circuit or chip that expects its input to be
flip-flopped every few seconds, and if it isn't, opens a relay. Is
there a simple circuit or chip that already does this? Or is there a
better way?
Thanks.
Bill Dennis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I hope you have better luck than I. Everspring never replied to my e-mail.
Bruce
Tom Parker wrote:
> The everspring website doesn't make me very confidant.
> ...
> I will make some enquiries with everspring.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
no doubt there are lots of no-cost ways to do this ( Visual Basic tools
for instance) in a more modern Windows, but I don't do Windows, and
your machine is so old it won't run 2000 well and XP at all. You could
of course get a copy of Windows NT, which is far superior to Win95. It
has a more modern tool-set.
If you switch to Linux you will have a lot more options. I use a Fedora
Linux P120 for an Internet radio for example, and thats powerful enough
to run a GUI ( X windows) and a full-fledged browser. A non-gui install
will run quite nicely on your P75. If it has a CD-ROM you don't even
have to install anything, you can boot one of the livecd versions
directly off the cd and not change your hard drive at all.
I could think of many ways to solve your problem, I'd probably write a
little perl script. Assuming you have no software skills, I suggest that
using cron and very simple commands you could simply send the data to
the syslog log file, which is automatically rotated to archived logs by
the system. Sending data to a network or bluetooth or USB drive like a
flash drive is trivial if your hardware is up to it. Caveat: everyone
else you ask will have a different implementation.
I'd be happy to provide more details if anyone is interested. and I
promise not to make any snotty comments about Windows. Linux has plenty
of user problems too.
Glossary of geek-speak:
Linux distro - linux comes in many distributions which share the same
operating system, but configure and package it for many different uses.
Debian, Suse, Fedora, Ubuntu are distros
livecd - a bootable CDROM that contains enough to run essential
utilities and basic apps like OpenOffice and Firefox without installing
files on the hard drive. see Knoppix.
HTH some
John
Mike Chancey wrote:
Hi folks,
As some of you may recall, I have been data logging my
charge/discharge cycles using the RS-232 port on my E-meter and an old
P75 laptop. I have been using the Hyperterminal software included in
Windows 95 and capturing the data to a text file. Since the E-meter
sends a complete data string every second, these files rapidly swell
in size and contain a lot redundant information.
My question is, is there a more flexible alternative?
--- End Message ---
